Monday, April 30, 2012

President Obama: Mean Spirited Political Hack, Always Campaigning

I saw this today, and had trouble believing it. Presdient Obama actually suggested--as celarly, yet about as dishonestly, as I have ever seen a politician suggest such a thing, that Mitt Romney would not have authorized the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, if Romney had been Presdient.  This is almsot the most MEAN SPIRITED thing I have ever seen/heard a Presdient say, and I have heard Obama say some awfuly MEAN SPIRITED things about many people (yes, GOP politicians and Congress, but also people like doctors).  This all comes from a Democrat AD DISTORTING what Mitt Romney ad said, with Obama "doubling down" on the whole idea of directly POLITIXIZING the bin Laden operation (which Ropmney, me, and msot other have praised Obama for, even as this blgo sarcastically ridiculed the OVER-HPE of the Obama role--leading to this blog's SCOOP of how Obama had PERSONALLY, but SECRETLY, joined the SEAL team in the actual operation).

Is there anything wrong with Obama "tkaing credtit' for the bin Laden decisin he made?  Of course not.  When he overdoes it, he may come across as a thouroughly UNLIKABLE individual tryingt to appropriate to HIMSELF LL of the "credit"--the lion's share of which surely involves to the peoople lhow actually palnned the operation, and the inteligence lpeople who made it possible.  Still, Obama deserves credit for HIS decsion, and EVEROONE ss willng to give him that creddit (As John McCain deserved credidit for the SURGE --Petraeus--policy in Iraq wfor which OBAAMA refused to give hhim credit, as McCain PUSHED that olicy well before Petraeus was put in charge over the OBJECTINS of Democrats like Clinton and Obama). The point is that Obama has a perfect right to take credit for what he DID, but to specualate that an opponent would NOT ahve doene something like the same thing is MEAN SPIRITED (especaily when it is based on DISHONESTY). 

You should be able to see where this is going.  The MAIN media "storyline" on Obama is how LIKABLE he is.  Hogwash.  And I get tired of 'conservatives", and gOP politicians, sayhing this based on POLLS. If yu read this blog, you know that this blog has concluseively shwon that PLLS are one of the most UNHEALTHY aspects of modern society: that is, the OBSESSIN with polls.  Nope.  Presdient Obama is NOT LIKABLE.  He is the msot ARROGANT individual I have ever seen in politics (saying a whole lot). He says TERRIBLE things about other people.  He LIES constantly (see this blog for example after exampe). Sure, I have no problem with him as a "man", afther, and husband.  But I "like" Mitt Rolmney just as much on that score. No.  I don't see Obama as "warm".  I see him as a remote, ARROGANT man who likes to LECTURE people. The is THIN SKINNED to criticism, and generally is the very knod of person I DO NOT LIKE.  (Cyncs, by the way, may say that all I have to do to see a person just as arrogatnt as Obama every day is to LOOK INTO THE MIRROR, which my own 89 year old mother says, even as shke agrees with me on Obama, but that merely proves my point on Obama.)  Bill Clinton was what I call LIKABLE, if sleazy.  Obama is not "sleazy", at least in theway Bill Cltinon was/is, but Obama is NOT "likeable".

As stated, all Obama likes to do is CAMPAIGN, an dLECTURE as to why everyone should let HIM make all of the decisions.  He has even LECTUED the United Stattes Supreme Court.  What he truly likes to do is HEAR HIMSELF TALK.  Anyone can seem "cool' if they get the SOFTBALL press, and questoins, Obama has gottaen from the beginning. When challegend, President Obama is UNLIKABLE.  And there are a LO of people who agree with me on this one.  Take my word for it. Remember, this blog is NEVER WRONG (se parehthesis above as to me looking in the mirror).

Doubt me?  NEVER do that.  All I have to do is recall what Presdient Obama said about DOCTORS, in a LIE designed to "push" his health care bill.  He said that doctors would prefer to get "$26,000, $30,000 or even $40,000 for an amputatin, rahter than do "preventive" diabetes care.  What a TERRIBLE thinng to say about doctors!!!!!  How CAN any doctor out there support a President who would accuse your ENTRIE PROFESSION of being this CORRUPT?  But what makes it really bad is that what Obama said is an OBVIOUS LIE (not a matter of opinion) . First , the doctors doing preventative care are generally NOT the docttors doing amputations.  Second, a surgeon miaght get as little as $1000.000 for an amputation, and this tallk of $30,000 or $40,000 dolars was an obvious LIE.  Presdient Obama does this all of the time  He just does not cARE whether wht he says is even close to the truth, so long as it SOUNDS good.  That is why he said, on one occasion, that small businesses would save "3000%" on health insurance premiums under Obama's health care bill.  In case lyou did not knoown, it is IMPOSSIBLE to "save" more than 100%, and Obama's health care bill does not even accomplish anything close to that. 

My 89 year old mother is till the best I hve heard on succinctly describing Obama:  'He wanst so give people things 'free' (with other people's money), and he wats to tell people what to do."

Sorry.  This is NOT "likable"  I don't think Obama comes across nearly as likable" as the character Burt Lancaster played so well in "Elmer Gantry", or nearly as likable as the real life Bill Clinton.  Furterer, people no longer are PAYING ATTENTION to Obama's WORDS (usually on teleprompter).  We have heard it all too many times.  The "preacher" voiice.  The arrogant, dogmatic assertions.  The sheer hubris. "Likable"?  I don't thinks so. 

Then why do the "American people' like Obama so much?  I don't think they do.  To the extent the polls are even honest (and it is a media LIE to report the poll they WANT to cite as totally accurate, even if many other polls say somethign different), here is how people "hear" the questin on Barack Obama:  "Do you HATE Barack Obama--and , remember, you may be a closet racist if you say you do?"  No, I don't HATE Barack Obama.  I just objectivelyl know that he is destroying this country.  In fact,, this whole media "storyline" on Barack Obama is absurd, as this whole QUESTION is absud (the poll question).  What difference does it make whether I would "like" Barack Obama as a person?  Why wuld I, or any ThINKING person ( leaving the media out of it), even TH:INK about whether I "like' Barack Obama.  If I were "hanging out" with him (lol), I might consider this question (if he were not President of the United States, as anyone would ALWWAYS want to "hang out" with the President--like him or not).  It is IRRELEVANT to me whether I "like' Barack Obama.  What does that have to do with teh wya I VOTE?  No.  I don't think that Obama "connects" any better with people--once they have heard all of these speeches, as he has doene nothng bu campaign from day 1 of his Presdiency) any better than Mitt Romney (who, I agree, does NOT realy "connect" with people)l.  When people suggest that Obama is "connecting" wiht them, in this ridiculous poll questin, they are really regurgitating merely what so many peooople are TELLING THEM.  If even "conservative' commentators, and GOP politiciaans, keep SAYING that Obama is "likable", why would people not assume that is the CORRECT answer.  People KNOW that they can VOTE for whom they want, and against whom they want, whether they "like" teh person or not.  As Mitt Romney has said:  "People are nto that stupid.'.  It is not an IMPORTANT quesitn, despite the media AGENDA to make it so, and there is no reason to assume people regard it as importatn.  After all, if Mary Matalin can "love' James Carvelle, and still apparenty disagree with him on virtually every political question, why hsould a voter have any problem with voting against someone that voter may VAGUELY LIKE (mainly because almsot everyone is tellng the voterter he SHOULD).

But this blog is not ordinary.  I tell you when the emperor (which Obama would like to be) has no clothes.  Obama is realyl pretty MEAN SPIRITED, and not really "likable" at all. "Soraring rhetoric" does not a 'likable" person make.

"But=, Skip, do you  "like' Barack Obama as a person, or are you a HATER."  Cnat you READ (or are you effectively BLIND, like me, such that you can't even read well enough to proofread or effectivelly  "spell check" these articles)?  To me, this is an IRRELEVANT question.  I don't think about it, unnless ltlhe media forces me to do so with their ridiculous "storyline".  I don't consider Obama 'likable".  Idon't HATE him, or feven "dislike " him, ON A PERSONAL LEVEL (partly because I don't knon him on that level).  But Obama is NOT asking for my VOTE on a PERSONAL LEVEL (or ist hat exaclty what he and the media are doing, because hey ca't make a convincing case any other way)?  I don't think Romney "coonnects" with peple, but that does nto mean I 'dislike" him on a personal level.  But, again, Romney is not asknig for my vote ON A LPERSONAL LEVEL.  Both of hese men are asking for my vote as a person who can LEAD this coutnry in the right directin.  Frakly, I DISLIKE BOTH MEN, on that basis, and that is the ONLY basis any of us should be evaluating them.  Should you vote for a person you HATE on a lpersonal level (say you even know them on that level), if you think thahat person will LEAD this coutnry in the right directin?  The media seems to suggest that you would NOT.  But that is objectively WRONG.  It is OBVIUS that you SHOULD vote for a person you HATE, even over a person you LIKE, if the person you hate would be the best (or at least a better) Presdient than the person you like.  How can you even CONSIDER any other postion. 

Where this really goes wrong is the GOP "estalbishmment" idea that you should not "criticize" Prfesdient Obama because peole "llike him".  Hogwash.  Talk about DEFEATISM.  The main pront of this article is that Obama is doing exactly the OPPOSITE of this:  saying HATEFUL things abut his oopponents at every opporuniy, and even about people who may not exaclty be his "opponents' (like DOCTORS, or people on Wall Street). There is this "idea' ott there taht politicians should UNILATERALLY DISARM against Presdient Obama, because that will put thime in DANGER of their political lives.  That seems to especially MOTIVEATE the GOP politicians in CONGRESS.  Taht is why I tell yo (among other reaasons):  DEFEAT THEM ALL.  And when I say ALL, I mean ALL--EVERY incumbent member of Congress, whether GOP or Democrat. 

Do you "like" ME--from what I say in this blog?  Why should I worry about it?  Yes, I understand how politicians THINK they need to be like used car salesmen, or insurance salesmen.  However, that is one of the things WRONG with this country, and why I "like" Crhis Chiristie (on the level that matters), even while I don't think he is my type of philosophical conservative.  No, I don't think a politician should go out of his way to OFFEND people, as you may believe I sometiems do.  But tyring to be "all things to all peoople' is its own kind of DISASTER. The thing I liked best about Ronald REagan was that he was AMIABLE, while standing FIRM on principle.  People liked it that Regan was "likable", but they like even mroe that he STOOD FOR THINGS, and couuld expalin WHY.  Obama, in contrast (as shown by the way he keeps CITING REAAN and how his "idesas' are supposedly "endorese" by BOTH SIDES--knowing he is lYING), is NOT "amiable". He is MEAN SPIRITED an dDISHOENST.  He does "believe in things< but hardly tryies to HONESTLY explain what he blieves in to people.  With Obama, it is all ARRoGANCE and WORDS--words used to SELL rather than clarify.  This is the OPPOSITE of Regan, and another way of saying why I don't find Obama "likable"  in the areas that matter. Obama is Elmer Gantry Reagan was Jimmy Stewart, or the character that Stewart played in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".

Contrast Jimmy Stewart with Barack Obama.  Stewart was a reserve air force officer, even in his later years. In that capacity, Stewart SECRETLY flew a COMBAT mission over North Vietnma, in the Vietnam War, as Stewart had done so many years before in World War II. That is the most UNBELIEVABLE thing about tthis blog's SCOOP that President Obama PERSONALLY went in with the SEAL team that tok out bin Laden.  You might think that the most "unbelievable" thing abut that is the idea that the Secret Service would let Obama do that.  I beg to differ.  The most unbelievable thing about hthis blog's (admittedly sarcastic" "coop" is the idea that Obhama would go in with the SEAL team, and later KEEP IT A SECRET (as Stewart did with regard to that mission over North Vietnam-even insisting upon it). To me, Mimmy Stewart was a "likable person,and so was Ronald Reagn.  Persdient Obama is not. 

President Obama, Dog Eather: Hockey Moms and Pit Bulls

See the previouis article.  I can now QUOTE one of the jokes that President Obama told, verbatim, as I have now hard a clip:

Obama:  "What is the difference betwwen a hockey mom and a pit bull?  A pit bull is DELICIOUS."  (emphasis in the original Obama delibery)

And CNN tries to make a big deal out of Romney--20 years and more ago--travelling with a adog on top of his car.  Do you think that joke is CREEPY?  I do. No, as stated in the previus article, it has nothing to do with whether Obama should be re-elected, but it is more creepy than it is funny.  Obama did it as a TAKEOF on both Sarah Palin, and his own AUTOBIOGRAPHY, where he talks about 'eating dog". Yep, it is an abasoute VACTUAL statement to call Obama a "dog-eather".

Again, look at the hYOCRISY here. What would happen if Sarah Plin told a JOKE like thsis?  The mnd boggles.  We KNOW what would happen, as it has already happened with numberous things Sarah Palin has said.   These (mainstream media "journalists") truy are the worst hypocrites who have ever walkked the Earth, on two legs or four. 

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  Oh, yes, the original Sarah Palin joke was FUNNIER.

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Barack Bizarre: President Jokes About Dog Eathing?

The headline is NOT mine.  It is a direct quote from the ppresent BANNER headline on Drudge ( The LINK on Drudge is to an 'msn-now" headline reading as follows: "Dog eating jokes main course at press dinner"

Are the Presdient AND the PRESS this SICK? Maybe--especailly the press ('journalists" none). 

If it were Mitt Romney, or a GOP Presdient, this would be a BIG DEAL.  CNN has focused on the UHNIMPORTANT, 20 year old story on Mitt Rmoney transporting his dog on top of his car for WEEKS-maybe MONTHS.  But CNN, inad the rest of the mainstream media, are the worst hyocrites who have ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four. 

No. I refuse to make much out of this. Dirty little secret:  It is IRRELEVANT to whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney should be Presdient whether Barack Obama laughs at, or tells, "dog eating" jokes. .And it is IRRELEVANT to whether Mitt Romney or Barack Obama should be President that Ropmney once carried his dog on top of his car (in a carrier). People who WANT to make this kind of thing a BIG DEAl are PARTISANS. Thhat definitely includes cN, and the rest of the mainstream media.  Do these things really count when teh FUTURE OF THE COUNTRY is at stake, and teetering on a knife edge?  Nope . But if the media will make as much as it did out of "free contraceptoini", or Rush Limbaugh calling a leftist partisan a "slut", then our media will tell you that you should consider SELLING OUT YOUR COUNTRY for almost any thing.  Why not for Barack Obama allegedly being "bizarre?"   Well, the answer to "why not" is that it is STUPID.  We have SERIUS ISSUES in this country, and ONLY CNLN (and lpeoople trying to do the asame thingaas CNN on the opposite side--sometimes even me) really think that things like a dog riding on top of a car, or "dog eating jokes", are even RFELEVANT on whoo should be Presdient.

Yes.  I think the Drudge headline is funny/clever. Is it "fair"?  Of coures not. It is not intended to be, just as CNN does not intend to be "fair" to Mitt Romney on either "Mormonism" or dogs.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).   Oh, Drudge put this headline under a BIG picture showing President Obama LAUGHING. 

Syria (Maverick Conservative Scoop): U.N. HMission Head in Syria Calls for More Violence in Syria

Hacker Boy (hackng into this truly disgraceful log, and still giving the llie to Skip's disgraceful charge that I am Piers Morgan, or some other employee/former emlployee of Rupert Murdoch who learned hacking in that capacity):  "Skip. You keep talking about the mainstream media getting worse, when it is your blog that keeps getting worse--at the very least so sarcastic as to reuqire extensive mental treatment.  You know perfectly well that the UN did NOT call for MORE viiolence in Syria."

Skip:  What? How could I be wrong about this one.  I admit that my anonymous sources seemed to say taht the UN head had called for an end to violence in Syrial, and this headline appeared as a "top story" on Yahoo "News" (which is NEVER right).  "UN mission head in Syria calls for end to violence"

But what is the PRIME maxim of "journalism"--repeated over and over again to explain whey "dood news" is never featured, but merely--say--ANTI-AMERICAN "news?  Come on. YOu know this one.  "Dog bites man" is NOT supposed to be "news".  Taht happens all of the time.  But "Man bites dog" IS "news", because that is somewhat rare.

Surely, only an INCOMPETENT would ANNOY me with the ridicuous headline/story that the head of the UN mission in Syria has "called" for an "end to the viiolence".

Sarcasm aside, I want to be as blunt as possilbe:  NO, this should NOT have been distributed as "news"--at least headline, "top story" "news".  In other words, you MIGHT make a passing mentino that the UN head called for that, as part of an actual NEWS story,  But it is NOT a "news" story that the UN head called for an "end to viiolence".  So what, you say.  Well, it continues to bother me thhat our modern "journalists" are that STUPID.  Nope. It does NOT do any good to put this non-news pablum out there.  It is SAPPY stuff--LAZY stuff to cover the DISINTEREST in real FACTS (that matteer), and real "news". 

That is why I made that "misstake" with the headline.  How could sane people actually think it is "news" that the UN mission head in Syria actaully said that he wanted an end to violence. What is he THERE for? 

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  Doesn't the media routinely quote PRESIDENT OBAMA, and did the media not quote previous American Presidents, saing banal, obvoius things?  Of course, and a tually too much.  Often, those "storeis" are absurd, as far as being "news".  It ie esppecially overdone with Obama. However, that is our PRESIDENT.  The media might feel "obligated" to publicize almost anything that the President says.  Sorry.  I know Obama wants us all to be "citizneens of the world", but it is ABSURD to do a "news" hadline saying that a PECE mission head has called for an end to violence.  If you are a "journalists" (as these people are NOT), yu just have to do better than that.  You can justly accuse me of having another relapse of my sarcasm disease, but sarcasmridicule is the ony possible response to this idiocy. 

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Obama: Return of Debtors' Prisons to Enforce ObamaCare? (So Says the AP and Yahoo--sort of)

You say the above is not ture?  Who says?  Lest yu forget, there is a FINE (part of ObamaCare) proposed for peole  who do not comply with the MANDATE to purchase health insurance.  If this DOES NOT WORK, without threats of jail, will this not reesult in the "return of debtoros' prisons?  And can you not end up in JAIL in a number of ways under this law, iincuding LYING (or failing to report) in order to aovid the fine?  You might note that, RIGHT NOW, teh Texas Attorney General's office, orr equivalent stae agency, can simply send a LETTER accusing a person of owing  BAcK child support (a "debt"), even after the child is an adult, and get the IRS to take the money out of a REFUND CHECK. Be honest. Do you KNOW how Obama INTENDS to enforce lthe INDIVIDUAL MANDATE, and how far he is prepared to go?  You don't know, and I realy don't know for sure, because our disgraceful media has NO INTEREST in the FACTS (or potentil future enforcement methods). But you say:  "Skip, you have no business saying this will bring back DEBTORS' PRISONS.  Taht is "hysterical", and DISTORTS THE DEBATE." 

Actually, I sort of agree with you ., That was MY reactin to another DISGRACEFUL "nes" story from the people at Yahoo (one of the worst companies that has ever existed, but typical of modern "jurnlaism"), quoting extensively the Associated Press (as to which this blgo has establishhed, over a decade, there iis NO worsse "news" organization that has ever existed, in this or any other UNIVERSE, becaue it is impossilbe to be any worse). Here is the headline of the article, contradicted in the article itself:  "Breeaest cancer survivor jailed for faiure to pay $280 medical bill, in return of debtors' prisons".

You can see the relationship with ObamaCare. WHY would a state PREFER medical bills to the point of allowing omeone to be ARRESTED for not paying them?  Right,. It is the SAME "justification" made for the ObamaCare "individual mandate"::  If lpeople fail to by health insurance, OR PAY THEIR MEDICAL BILLS (even when able to do so), then they are getting a FREE RIDE on other peole--taking the bread out of the mouths (or the cancer treatment away) from other peole.  You go very far down the Obama road, you DO end up with DEBTORS' PRISONS.  The logic leads DIRECTLY THERE, whehter with regard to health care, grocery store credit, or credit cards.

What do I mean wwhen I say that the DISGRACEFUl, INCOMPETENT, HYSTERICAL AP--and Yaho--contradict themselves?  Weil, for one thing, in the very FIRST paragraphm, the FALSE assertion is made, as is obvius from the internally contradictory sentence:  "Debtors' prisons were abolished in the United States in the 1930s, but 1/3 of the states still allow peoople to be jailed for any numberr of things, including faiure to pay for health care services or credit cards."  So "debtors' prisons" were ABOLISHED, but 1/3 of the states RETAIN them?  Great, you LKIARS of the AP, and Yaho.  Do you never stop GETTING WORSE.  You should be able to see lthe problem here, and it is a DELIBERATE lLIE by the AP for the PUROSE of their AGENDA with this story (to HYPE the story).  When it is said that "debtors' prisons" were eliminated, we are talking about DEBTORS' PRISONS. We are NOT talking aobut jailing lpeople under SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES for speccifc DEBTS (or for failing to compy with collection procedures allowed to try to collect specific debts). "Debors's prisons" is a LIE, and the despicable AP kknows it.

Nevertheless, you APOLOGIISTS for the DESP:ICABLE AP may argue, is it "right"?  It depends, doesn't it.  Traffic vifines?  Are they not DEBTTS (with, maybe, LESS real utility for the society at learge than MAKNG people pay medical lbills, or credit card ebt)?   Sure, they are debt (although a person might use SEMANTICS to argue taht they are someting else, but that is realyl what they are).  In fact, in the news this last week was a town that was CRACKING DOWN on peple running red lights, and caught with one of those CAMERAS. But doesn't there at least have to be a court PROCEEDING, even if people don't appear?  Sure, but that is OFTEN true of civvil debts as well. The desgraceful AP article even talks abut "using publicly funded courst, sheriff's deuties and other public officials to collect private debts,.  What do you think our judicial system is FOR?  A creditor can go to COURT (where the debtor may not appear), and get an uncontested JUDGMENT.  Then the creditor may REQUIRE the debtor to "appear" to REFEAL the debtor's asset (talking Texas law here, where I was an attorney on both sides of this for the first part of my 35 lyears as a Texas lawyer). IF the debtor does not appear, the debtor GOES TO JIL for failing to appear (that is, after a court order is obtainned), for CONTAEMPT, and the debtor is todld he can get out of jail (or, usually, out of the deputy's custody), by arrangement to pay the debt.  This is all apart from the EXECUTION on property, which--in some states, can TAKE AWAY A PERSON'S HOUSE.  In other words, there are all kinds of pr9oceedings in which wyou can go to JAIl, essentially for DEBT.

Still don't understand? Waht about CHILD SUPPORT (that "garnishment by letter" I reference earier)?  Even if you SAY you do not have the money, you can go to JAIL for failing to pay child support (again, USUALLY after a court proceeding). Is the AP saying this is DEBTORS' PRISON?  Who knows. This is the DESPICABLE< INCOMPETENT AP, and despicable, incompetent people like those of Yahoo "News' "quote" the AP. 

Then there is El Paso Country, where I ive. The El Paso Country attorney, backed up by the sheriff's dpartment, regularly ENFORCES BAD CHECKS. No a CHECK is a DEBT, although deliberately writing a bad check without fihnds to cover ti, in order to obtain a good or service, is a kind of THEFT.  The BAD CHECK can be for almost anyting, although it is not supposed to be one "extorted" by a debet collectin agency to "pay" a PAST DEBT (at least not in Texas).  But you shuld lbe able to see that the County of El Paso is NOT goihng to make thisese "fine" distincitions  If they put out a WARRANT for a bad check, you are going to be ARRESTED.  They regularly send out LETTERS threatening people with that--people who hae allegedly written bad checks. 

You shuold be able to see that theese are COMPLEX issues, which you really have to "report" on a case by case, or at least law by law--basis.  That is exactly what the despicable AP, and Yahoo, do NOT want to do. 

Do "debt collectors" ABUSE the law.  Damn right they do.  After my frim (not my decisin) once represented a dbet collection agency, I SUED credit agencies and debt collection agencies as a TRIAL LAWYER.  Teas, and most states, have CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS, inclduing laws on debu collectin. There is a FEREAL LAW prohibiting "unfair dbet collection practices".  Nevertheless, there are, as the AP says, numberous LEGAL ways that you can end up in jail for not paying a specific debt, or not complying with the REQuIREMENTS of a court, or other agency, which a creditor is LEGALLY using to enforce a DEBT. The law definitely allows you toattempot to COLLECT a debt in this country.  You are just supposed to do it in a legaly correct way, and--generally--you cannnot JAIL a person MERELY for failing to pay an ORDINARY  debt.  The trade off here--between DEADBEATS getting a "free rie", and over-zealous debt collectin--will last as ong as time itself.  The incompetent AP is a disgrace for trying to make thissome sort of "scandaL" involving the "return of debtors' prisons".

Oh.  Notice that "breast cancer surviror" touch, repeated over and over again in the article.  SO WHAT?  I am serious.  SO WHAT. Do "breast cancer survivors" GO TO JAIL for traffic fines?  Of curse.  For bad checks?  Of course.  Prostate cancer survivors for faiing to lpay child support?  Of course. That has NOTHING oto do iwth it.  It reminds me of the famous Texas case of "humber v. Morton--farily recent when I was in law school--establishing an IMPLIED WARRANTY (or some such CONSUMER PROTECTIN rule in housing for the buyer).).  This was a time when Texas law was actually taking a LIBERAL directin (to be reversed in the past decade or two).  My law professor says that the result of the case was signalled by the first three words of the opinion:  "The widow Humber........"    Yep. The "widow Humber" won.  And "widow Humber" had MORE relevance than whether a person is a "breast cancer curvivor".

No.  I tel you, and show it almost every day in this blog, that our media are getting WROSE.  They have absoutley NO interest in FACTS, or in the real issues.  No, I have NO sympthy, as a general rule, for "debt collecters".  That is even apart from the fact that I used up all sympathy for ANYONE by the age of gen--all sympathy I was orn with. However, this sotry is useless, and worse than useless. We already have Federal laws.  And states can make laws, or change them, if they are being abused.  This HYSTERICAL reference to "debtors' prisons" is ridiculous . And then there is ObamaCare. Is the AP realy saing that ObamaCare--as illustrated by thesese AP exmples--can easicly slide into DEBTORS' PRISONS for peole who don't comply with Obama's "signature" health care alw?  I don't see how any other concusion is posssilbe--unless, of coure, yu have previuslyreaed this blog, and understand that the peole of the AP are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth (together with the rest oft he mainstream media), on two legs or four.

P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).   Oh. How do I KNOW abut the Texas Attorney General being able to get the IRS to "garnish" your refund with a LETTER?  It happened to my ex-wife's new husband (as relayed to me by my Boston lawyer daughter), and my friend Sylviea (with friends i nt the Teas attorney General's office, and contacts who have experienced EVERYTHING) confirmed to me that shehas been LONG familiar with thi.  It was a SHOCK to me.  My reacitn was:  Can this really happen in America, where all it takes is a LETTER to grab money from you?  Apparently so, although I still find it hard to believe.  Be warned. We are headling down that road with ObamaCare, aloong with so many other BAD things at the end of that road.

Student Loans and Government Predatory Lending: The Maverick Conservative Gets It Right Again, as Federal Government Repeats Housing Mistakes

What was the BASIC cause of the housing "bubble", and the trigger for the worst recession since World War II (from which Obama, with the aid of the GOP, is making it impossible for us to "recover")?  GOVERNMENT SPONSERED PREDATORY LENDING. For decades, and at an accelerateing pace--helped by the ECONOMIC FASCISM of "quasi-government" entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--the Federal Government ENCOURAGED people to buy houses they dould not afford, based on the assumption that housing prices would just keep going up (about which Bailont Ben Bernanke--The Worst Failure in the History of World Finance--did absolutely noting). That is what is so hilairous about this standard leftist FANTASY about "predatory lending".  The Federal Government was THROWING MONEY at housing, to make it possible for EVeVEYONE to onw a house (whehter the person can afford it or not, and whehter the person is o welfare and food stampls or not). This DROVE UP house prices, and led  banks and mortgage companies to GO WHERE THE MONEY IS.  Willie Sutton, on why he robbed banks:  "That is where the money is." 

Is it "predatory lending" to do what the GOVERNMENT is virutually ROCING you to do (not aloowing yu to "discriminate" against even POOR people--the problem being that POOR people can't afford a house)?  Is it "predatory" to FORCE MONEY ON PEOPLE, or to give people the idea that they don't really NEED MONEY to buy a house?  Wy should they?  They can live in a house for a matter of a year or two, or maybe even a month or tow, and MAKE MONEY if they are FORCED to sell the house because they can't really afford it.  What happens, with this GOVERNMENT philosophy?  Right.  The PRICE of houses goes up to impossible heights. It is INEVITABLE that the "buble' will burst.  WHEN (not "if') the bubble bursts, people who were "encouraged" to take out loans they can't afford have no chance to pay back the loans.  The death spiral feeds on itself, and we end up where we are now.  Yes, this was exacerbated byt he fact that BANKS were looking at all of this lovely government money, ankd figured they shouuld get their fair share: bying into this FALSE, predatory "philosophy" of government DISTORTION of the marketplance.  So Wall Street and tge big banks figured out how to LEVERAGE the "bubble', because--as Willie Sutton said, although from a slightly different perspective--that is where the money was. 

Now look at what I said yesterday about teh PREDATORY LENDING (same as government encouraged--almost mandated--lending in housing) of STUDENT LOANS.  You may have thought: "Hey, Skip can never be PROVEN right on this one--at least not until the whole thing COLLAPSES."  Wrong you are. The DAY after I wrote that sentence or two about the PREDATROY LENDING of government sponsered, subsidized student loans, CNN had a panel discussion where the LEFTIST and the HOST expressed the same concerns that I was referencing. If it is OBVIUIS enough for CNN, then you KNOW that what I said has lalready been ROVEN. 

Thus, you have the LEFTIST saying: "Banks are approaching 18 year olds who do not have any idea how the world works, and selling them these predatory loans."  What this leftist, being a leftist, failed to mention was that it is usaully not exactly the BANK.  What happens is thaat  a SCHOOL--wither a legitimate shocll or one takng adantage of all of hat lovely government money to basicaly take advantage of peole--sort of "funnels' students to a ban (or several banks).  Or else a SCHOOL tells students about the government progras/subsidies available, and suggests that the student can find "free" money from these programs by looknig around.  Then you may have banks 'advertising" that they have loans avilable.  Is that not the whole POHNT of the government prgorram: for students to take advantage of the program,and know that it exists?  You can see the PREDATION here.  And look at the RESULT, even with a recognized school like HARVARD.  Harvard gets to RAISE TUTTION, and does not have to use HARVARD'S MONEY (a truly LARGE "endowmennt") for StTUDENTS.  The GOVERNMENT helps HARVARD, and a lot of schools less pretigius than Harvard. This puts ACADEMIA in the same positon as HOUSING COMPNIES and BANKS in the housing "bubble".  Schools don't have to be COMPETITIVE n price) or EFFICIENT.  They can give all of those LEFTIST professors and administrators all of the money they want.  The GOVERNMENT is really "paying for it", thourgh these SUBSIDIZED grants and loans.  That is hwere the CNN HOST actually came in, raising the QUETIN of whether these student loans (even worse for GRANTS) was creating a BUBBLE (not a word the ost used, of course), in SCHOOL TUITION. 

It is the housing bubble all over again, and teh LEFTIST REPSONE is the SAME. Don't balame the government DISTORTION and "FREE" MONEY.  Don't blame the government POLICY of encouraging people to take out loans they will NEVER be able to pay back.  There are estimates taht there may be as much as a TRILLIN dollars in student loanns, or at least we may be in the process of builidn gthat much of a possible DEFAULT (just like in housing, as students cannot ever pay the money pack).  But the LEFTRIST "respoonse" is to BLAME HT BANKS for their "predatory lending".  That is what the LEFTIST on CNN did.  He recognized the problem that students were taking out loans that they could never repay, but what he wanted to do is simply GIVE THEM THE MONEY--along with governmment REFORM and REGULATION to crack down on "abuse".  This is ALWAYS the leftist "respoinse", no matter how many times it FAiLS. Thus, President Obama is out there calling for "reform" in student loans to REGULATE banks (and maybe even schools). 

What can you say about peole this DUMB, or thiss ideologically crazy?  I know exactly what I just called our President, and I meant it. What you can say is that people who think like this are gong to DESTROY US>  To look at the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT as an INFINITE source of money WILL destroy us, and that is what all of  these people who want the FEDERAl GOVERNMENT to :"ensure" that everyone can get a college education are ding.  The Federal Governemnt is looked on as a source of "free mmoney".  It USED to be that peole living in individual states could receive a CHEAP eduction in state colleges and universities.  I went to law school, in 1971, on the G. I. BILL.  Some minor savings (from my army "salary). NO LOAN.  Not even a JOB. NO parental support.  Government POLICY has made this currently impossible. What I did with my Gi. I. laon, at the University of Texas, one of my borthers did WORKNG AT MCDONALD'S (to fund his undergraduate studies at the University of Texas). If it CAN'T be done on a STAE and LOCAL level, then it CAnNNOT BE DONE.  Throwing FEDERAL money at tthe problem merely makes lthe problem WORSE, as the HOGS line up at the trough (incduding the HOGS in the Federal Governennmnet).

No.  The lefitst is right, as this blog was right just yesterday.  Massively increasing SUBSIDIZED student loans merely ensures lPREDATORY LENDING of money that people will NEVER be able to pay back.  And, in a lot of ways, GRANTS are even worse, ecause lthey are perceived as even more "free"--even as they CAUSE educatin in this coun nntry to be PRICED out of MOST people's reach, AND creat all of thos "Willie Sutton's" out there going "where the money is' to get money from the American TAXPAYER (or from LOANS that the GOVERNMENT is taking tut in the NAME of the American taxpayer).

Sad. Really sad.  And this idea of "free" goernment money keeps getting HARDER to fight, as it permeates ever greater areas of our lives.  FREE CONTRACEPTION???????????!!!!!!  That is now the "standard" of the kind of BIRDE you need to make to a group of "gargeted" voters (WOMEN) in order to BUUY their votes. Then there are the BRIBES to STUDENTS.  And the GOP seems unable to call these BRIGBES what they are, and to make the case that the whole thing will DESTROY us. 

P.S.  No proofrading or spell checking (bad eyesight). 

Friday, April 27, 2012

U.S. Economy: Little "Growth"; Trend Is BAD; Obama and Bernanke FAIL again, as Wall Street Cheers (Expecting More Bailouts)

The headline news today is that the U.S. GDP (Gross Domestic Product) "grew a "tepid" 2.2% in the first quarter (subject, as usual, to revisioin).  This was BELOW "estimates" and BELOW the previus quarter. You mihtg also note that GASOLINE is part of the GDP (gasoline "sales"), and that the price of oil and gasoline soared in the first quarter (adding to the GDP: proably ADDING more immediately to the number than the NEGATIVE effect of the rising gasoline prices on the rest of the economy).

Remember, this "tepid" number comes dESPITE Bailout Ben Bernanke and our politicians making sure that the the country is AWASH in MONEY.  Sure, it is MONOPOLY money, PRINTED MONEY.  But the government is still THROWING MONEY at the economy, and especially at the BANKS and WALL STREET (even as President Obama TRASHES them).  The stock market continues to do well, because they are COUNTING on "Bailout Ben", "Tax Cheat" Tim Geitner, and "Trend Is Yur Friend" Obama to "save" THEM (not YOU).  GOP your "savior?  Don't be silly.  Remember, that "payrolll tax cut" that was suppposed to add "growth"?  All it has done, as this blog told you would be the case, is ADD to our enormous deficit without helping us 'grow".  Yu WILL remember that the GOP BETRAYED US on things like the "payroll tax cut", and has done NOTHING 9literally nothing) to stop this insanity of rely8ing on ever-increasing SPENDING to smehow "save" us.  Or is it WALL STREET they are relally trying to save (OBMAA AND THE GOP)??    Certainly, that is who Bailout Ben Bernanke is trying to save.

What is the Obama response, with thich the GOP is going along?  Right. MORE BRIBERY.  "Free" contracepton, and other "goodies", for women (on the theory tghat women CAN be bribed more easily than men).  MORE student loans and grants, at SUBSIDIZED interest rates, on the theory htat students don't know any better and cna be LURED into PREDATORY LOANS (lol).that they can never repay, as ACADEMIA (major Democrat/leftist stronghold) benefits. You already know abut that BRIBE of the "payroll tax cut".  There are the HOUSING BRIBES.  Every day, Obama announces a NEW BRIBE, and the GOP says: We can bribe too,' as they FALSELY calim that they are insisting on "payinf for" things like the student laon BIRBE, even as this is a gOP LIE (as well as an Obama LIE).  If we can "cut" any spenidng (oh, you LIARS of the dishonest GOP), or remove any "tax loopholes", we NEED the money to PAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT WE HAVE (that the GOP has NOT "cut").  It is simply a LIE, by people whose sociopatic dishonesty is unmatched in history (GOP and Democrats) that we are "paying for" NEW expansions of government (or throwing NEW money at the economy) by FAILING TO PAY FOR the government we have.  As this blog has correclty told you, this is EXACTLY like "paying for" a NEW YACHT, with "cutting' the rate of growth in your spending from what you wanted it to grow, and maybe adding some small second job, while NOT PAYING FOR your TEN MILLION DOLLAR credit card debt.  Hey.  Why not?  If the Federal Government can do it, why should individuals not jsut have to "apy for" NEW SPENDING (or PROMISE to do so, withut intending to keep that promise), and not woorry abut the OD DEBT.  The old credit card debt, after all, is IN THE PAST.  And what can a person do about the FACT that he is spending 40% more than the money is is taking in, eVERY DAY?  All of that is the PAST.  All that matters is PROMISING to "pay for" the FUTURE.  Moan.  We realy are DOOJMED, and the GOP is NOT the "answer". If I knew the "answer", I would tell yu. Oh, I DO "know" the answer, but I just don't know how to achieve it.  The "answer" is for the PEOPLE not to take it any more:  for us to DEFEAT THEM ALL.  It is just lamost impossible to cnceive how to do this effectively, which is exactly what our politicians are relying upon.  They feel that people REsPOND to BRIBES, while they just do not CONSISTENTLY repspond to "principle' and REALITY.  That is partly because politicans feel that people CANNOT effectively try to "enforce" spending DISCIPLINE, because "everyone is doing it".  You shuld be able to see why I just REFUSE to support Mitt Romney. I just REFUSE to participate in theis SHELL GAME, even as I KNOW that Presdient Obama is DESTROYING this country. 

Shell games, and Ponzi schemes, just don't work forever.  In the end, the house of cards fals.  We are closer to the en, now, than we are too the beginning, although it is impoosible to predict exactly when the house of cards will finally collapse.  But we are NOT "doing well".  We are MIRED in an economy that CANNOT "fully recover", because we have made that impossible.  The BEST we can expect is to continue to "muddle along" this way, year after year, until the ifinal collapse.

By the way, how did i KNOW that the GDP news was BAD, even before I saw the story?  Easy.  The GDP sotry was NOT THERE as one of the "top stories" as I "logged on" my AT&T/Uverse "welcome page" from Yahoo "News".  As I have told you, the peole from Yahoo are DISHONEST, PARTISAN HACKS (like the rest of the mainstream media). Thus, you had "stories' abut CHINESE ACTIVISTS.  You had stories about something called 'Amer Sprots" shwong "profit growht".  You had a sotry about Nokia being "downgrade".  What you did NOT have was any story abut the gDP "tepid growth"--story which had been out there for less than an hour, but which the partisanns at Yahoo obviusly thought was not that important.  That is how I KNEW that the news on GDP was BAD.  If it had beeen GOOD, it would have been all over Yahooo "top stories'.  Indded, the SAME THING happened yesterday, as the BAD "jobs report" (on new unemplyment claims) was quickly BURIED on Yahoo.  Terrible compay.  BOYCOTT YAHOO AND AT&T. 

P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Prresident Obama: From Polygamist and Muslim Ancestors (Father, Grandfather, Breat-Grandfathers) to an Indonesian Muslim School; to an Atheist Childhood; to a Cocaine Youth; to Presently NOT Being a Christian

This article has a history, includnig being a SATIRE of the BIGOTRY of the mianstrream emdia (including Wolf Blitzer and CNN).  See previous articles posted on this blog this week..

But this really started in the 2008 Presidential campaign, whenb the BIGOTED left (including the leftist mainstream media) came after Mitt Romney ON RELIGION.  As readers of this blog know, this blog conducted a Sodom land Gomorrah search--I will never forgive Him for that assignment, which I am still convinced was petty punishjment for my agnosticism--for an honewst competent Associated Press reporter.  As part of that futile search (no such creature exists), which took place over at least 8 yyears, this blog REPORTED on one of the most disgraceful AP stories ever written. The story was "featured" on AOL, and made a big deal :(A P reporters are RELIGIOUS BIOGTS, and were then, as well) out of Mitt Romney's GREAT-GRANDFATHER being a polygamist (HORRS!!!!!!---the SARCASETIC word I used then and use now). This was a DISGRACEFUL story, on many levels, not JSUT BIGOTRY. The Mormon religion--the mainstream religion to which Romney beongs--gave up polygamy in the 19th Century (basically as a condition of Utah becomming a state). It is FALSE BIGOTRY to try to taint MODERN Mormons with the history of polygamy, and that is not changed by the "heretics" who stick by the old polygamist philosophy. 

But look at what the EViL AP was teling you, as this blog pointed out at the time.  First the HYPOCRITES of the AP were teling you that it MATTERS taht Mitt Romney's "great-grandfather" was a polygamist, while it does not matter that Barack Obama's GRANDFATHER was almsot lsurely a poolygamist (and we may not be that sure about his father). Unlike the "establishment" Mormon religion in the U.S., to which Mitt Romney has always belogned, MUSLMS (the religion to which OBAMA'S ancestors, on his fatrher's side, belonnged) have not really given up polygamy to this day.  (and not just FRINGE groups).  Osama bin Laden had multiple wives.  Okay. the AP, CNN and the rest of the mainstream media are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four.  This blog has shown you that time and time again.  But the EVIL of this story did not stop there.

Look at GUITL BY ASSOCIATION., and the DISCRFEDITED idea that a person is repsonsible for the sins of his ancestors.  Sure, this is HYOCRISY. But it is EVIL in and of itself, and that is exaclty what the desiccable AP was telling you was RELEVANT with regard to Mitt Romney, but NOT relevant with regard to Barakck Obama. The despicable AP was simply NOT INTERESTED in the famiy history of Barack Obama. No, I am not talkng aoubt the KOOK idea that Presdient Obama is PRESENTLY a Muslim, when the fact is that he presently has no religoin at all (NOT being a Christian, as Bill Maher and I agree).. But Obama had MUSLIM ancestors, and DID attend that Muslim shcool in Indonesia.  It is virtually certain--aain, the mainstream media being uninterested--that Obama's GRAnDFATHER was a polygamist.  Why is that RELEVANT to Romney, as to a GREAT-GRANDFATHER, but NOT relevant as to Obama (for a GRANDFATHERl).  The mainstream media could argue a thousand years,a nd not explain it. But they ocono't care. This is another reason they are EVIL people, as I said in 2008. Thus, the AP story alomst shouted that the "sins of the fathers",, and even the "sins of the great-grandfathers", can be visited upon the children, and that mere ASSCOCIATION with the Mormon Chhruch made Mitt Romney "guitlty" of EVERY SIN ever committed by the Mormon Chruch. If that is so, WHJY is Barack Obama not RESPOSNIBLE for the ANTI-AMERICAN HATE of REveerend Wright (not even metnitoned int he headline), who Obama regarded as a MENTOR for 20 years?  There is a much GETTER case for that than that Romney is responsible for every sin ever committed by the Mormon Chruch (which, after all, probably do not measure up to the SINS commmitted by the CHRISTIAN CHURCH (such as in the days of the Spanish Inquisitin).  These "sins", bby the way, INCLUDE POLYGAMY (in the Old Testament, adopted by the Christian Chruch, although that church coulduld not really exist before Christ).  I am serius. The blog headline does nto even go far enough.  As far as a SPECIFIC religion, Barack Obama has MUCH MORE to answer for, iwth Reverend Wright, than Mitt Romney.  You will again remember that Reverend Wright asserted that the CIA was DELIBERATELY destroying black men by providing them with illegal drugs. It was Reverend Wright who said:  "God damn America". And that was not even all of the hatred that REverend Wright spewed out, in his obsessive RACISM of looking at the world as a "right" agaisnt "white Europeans". 

Obama himsself admits that the was RAISED AN ATHEIST, and did not even "come to Christ" unitl at least age 18.  The mainsteream media would  have you believe that this is IIRELEVANT for Obama,, but that ROMNEY is responsbiel for the "racism" of the Mormon Chruch when Mitt Romney was about the SAME AGE taht Barack Obama has ADMITTED using cociane, and illlegal drugs. No allegation that ROMNEY has engaged in racism.  Only that his CHURCH--like Reverend Wright--had that racist idea that black peoople could not fully participate in the Mormon Church.  This absurd positon--agina, as with the idea of RACIAL PREERENCES urged by the left)--falls apart on the problem of DEFINITION.  Who the Hell is realy black?  Obama?  18?  1/16?  Whoever Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton say?  This is reallly just another way of syaing that there is NO SUCH THING as "racial blood". The blood of all homo sapiens individuals, in air, is RED, and there is NO "test" for whether your "bloogd" is "balck" for "white".  Nevertheless, the Mormon curch position was NOT a positon that sayid that blacks should be "dicrimniated against" generally, but only that they could not--for THEOLOGOCIAL reasons--be FULL participants in the Mormon religoni.  This postion was REVERSED by a THEOLOGICAL REVELATION, while Romney wsa still a young man (and not part of chruch policy). Obama's association with Reverend Wright lasted until 2008, when Obama HAD to disassociazte himself FOR OLITICAL REASONS. Notic ethat while the case againset Obama being "tainted" by association with rEverend Wright is BETTER than teh case agasint Mitt Romney for being associated with the Mormon church, as far as a dirct "taint" for the "positons" of the church, almost NO ONE realyl opposes Barack Obama or Mitt Romney BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGINO.  Tis is all SMEAR--even if I htink there is more substance to ethe SMER of Obama for hsi close association with REverend Wright than there is for Rmmey merely because of the THEOLOGICAL positons of the Mormon church.

Ype.  We are now to the amazing recent allegations that Mitt Romney is "not realy a Christian", because he is a Mormon (HORROS!!!!--sarcasm again, directed at WOLF BLIITZER and the EVIL PEOPLE of CNN and the mainstream media). Then you have the DEMOCRAT govvernor of Montana trying to say that people should vote against Mitt Romney because Romney's FATHER was a "member of a polygamist commune in Mexico"--even though Mitt Romney's father was GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, a canddiate for lPresident of the United States, and married ot the same ONE WOMAN for a lot of eyars. I did not really think that leftist Democrats (yep, taht is what the Democrat governor of Montana IS) and the leftist medai could get any WORSE lthan 2008, but they have managed it.  These--leftist Democrats, including the leftist media, such as Wolf Blitzer and CNN--people are EVIL POPLE enganging in EVIL.  notice that I was a YONG MAN when Mitt Romney's father ran for Presdient.  Tis BIGOTRY agaisnt Mormons, for POLITICAL purposes, was not nearly so evident.  And it is NOT because of the rise of the "Christian right".  It is because of teh LEFTIST MEDIA, who thingk they can USE the STUPIDITY of evangelical Christians to advance the MEDIA AGENDA in favor of Obama (it bein gTHHE MEDIA how think evangelical Christians are stupid--not me) 

Prolbem for this sudden asserrtin by CNN, Wolf Blitzer and the erest that Romney is not a Christian (a totally THELOGICAL questin, as Romney says he is a Mormn, and the questin of whethe ra Mrormon is a Christian is a THEOLOGICAL debate totally irreelevant to ANY politi cal issue, unless you are as EVIL as Wolf Blitzer).  :  PRESIDENT OBAMA IS NOT A CHRISTIAN, AND THAT MAKES HIM A LIEAR AND A HYPOCRITE (Beill Maher and The Maverick Conservative--the two most noted agnostics in the country--agreeing that Obama is NOT a Christian, but a "secular humanist", whihc was Maher's term wiht which I agree). How can supporters of Obama, like the mainstream media, take on Romney as not being a Christian wihthout addressing the questin of whether Obama is really a Christain? Easy, of course. They are DISHONEST HYPOCRITES. Andno, this should not be an "issue" in a political campaign, but CNN, Wolf Blitzer and the rest are eVIL people who are willing to TRY to make it a MAJOR issue to SUPPRESS the "evangelical vote".  These are some of the most EVIL peple who have ever lived., and they are doing their best to DESTROY this country.  But, as this blog has told yu, I have NO FEAR on religon (one reason I am an agnostic). This means that I will FIGHT the "battle' on the media's ground, if only to show you how EVIL they reall are to even get us into this "deate".

President Obama is NOT a Christian.  There is actually LITTLE evidence that he is.  He was RAISED an atheist.  There apears to be NO "family history" (recent) of Christians.  He SUPPOSEDLY "converted" to Christianity wwith the ANTI-AMERICAN, racist Reverend Wright as his "mentor".  This was a "conversion" that was CONVENIENT for Obama's political career in Chicago.  Except when he makes a DELIBGERATE EFFORT, usually wih a teleprompter, Obama does not TALK like he regards his religion as important in his life.  I KNOW, as an agnostic myself..  Obama supports the ACLU almost down the line, and that is an ANTI-CHISTIAN organizatin.  Obama MISQUOTES the Declaratn of Indppendence to leave out "by their Creator". He talks about people "clinging to their religion". He wass willing ot throw Reverend Wright under the bus, for POLITICAL reasons, but did NOT 'move on" to a Christian church of the same type.  He has "moved on" to NO speciafic Chrsiitan religino at all, which the mainstream media (chutzpah here, or hutzpah or however that Jewish word is now spelled) is trying to USE agaisnt Mitt Romney.  The media feels that they can GET AWAY with Obama being merelly a "generic" Christian, wihout any SPECIFIC BELIEFS subject to ATTTAcK, as they delcare Obama' s previuos Reverend Wright associaton to be "in the past". If you realyl buy that one, I have this bridge in Brooklyn I can show you: for ssale, cheap. 

No. The GREAT WEIGHT of the evidence is that Presdient Obama is not really a believing Christian, and that Bill Mahher and The Maverick Conservative are right. 

Thus, you can see that the headline is basically absoutely accurate.  Obama does have close FAMILY connectins to both the Muslim religin and to POLYGAMY.  Obama ADMITTED in his book using cocaaine, at about the same time Romney was NOT involved n the alleged THEOLOGICAL RACISM of the Mormon church (in the past, like REverend Wright).  Obama has even recently said that he was essentailly RAISED AN ATHEIST.  Presdient Obama, did NOT move to anothe,r, similar, church, after thworing REverend Wright under the bus.  All he does is claim a sorrt of "generic" Christian religin.  Exacly why, again, is it not MORE LIKELY that Obama is not a Christian? VASTLY more likely?   Again, look a the situation if Obama is not really a believing Christian. This is NOT a THEOLOGICAL quesiton, based totally on RELIGION.  This is a question of HYPOCRISY and HONESTY.  If Obama is not really a Christian, then he is a dhshonest opportunist.

No.  This arlice should make one thing cliear to you:  It may THEORETICALLY be relecant whether Presdient Obama is a dhsnonest opportunist on relign.  But the ISSUE is just an EVIL one upon which to base a policial leecitn, whehter you are tlakng aoubt Obam or Romney.  (even wrose, since the issue there is totally THEOLOGICAL).  You should be able to tell why I think Wolf Bliltzer, the peole of CNN, the peolle of the despicable AP, and the rest how thing like them, are some of the most EVIL people who have ever lived. But i they are gong to keep gong down this EvIL road, then so will The Maverick Conservative--all of the way to November.As stated, I have NO FEAR of relision, and there is NO PART of religon I am not eiwilling to discuss. And I am more than willng to keep discussing teh OBVIUS (to me and Bill Maher) fact that Presdient Obama is not a Christian.  Notcie tha t you have a perfect righ tto your PEROSNAL OPNION aS to which candidate fits best with yoru religious beliefs. It should simply not be an ISSUE.  And I don't really thnk yo HULLD decide to vote based on whether a person "shares" your religni.  As I have noted before, evangelical Christians would be MUCH better off, on almost every POLICY matter, supporteng ME--an "admitted" agnostic--as Presdient, than supporting alomsot any leftist Democrat who may claim to be a "Christian".  I think their are tow real questions for a person who actually believes in his religin: 

1. Which cnadidate will be best for the country.

2. Which candidate will best help create a COUNTRY most tolerant of my religioius beliefs, and most likely to advance the POLICIES that my religious beliefs may cause me to beelieve in. 

As I have said, in the traditin of Harry Reid ("I don't see how any Hispanic could ever vote for a Republican"):  I don't see how any BELIEVING Christian can vote for Barack Obama.  It is not that it matters whether Obama is really a Christian, although he is not.  It is that Obama, and peole who think like him (like Bill Maher) really are conducting a WAR ON RELIGNO (espececially the Christian religin). 

P.S No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).  Is there really any CHRISTIAN out there SUTPID enough to vote agaisnt Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon, even though that person realizes that person realizes that Barack Obama--as a matter of POLICY-is going after Christian churches and beliefs in this country?  Wolf Blitzer and CNN--anti-Christian BIGOTS that they are--really do think that evangelical Christians (especiallly) ARE that stupid.  I do not.  Now I ma sure there are SMOE peole who are really Christians--hard as it is for me to believe--who will vote fopr Barack Obama because they think he, on balnce,, is more likely to adance their primary POLICY positinis thatn Mitt Romney. Fine.  I have no real problem with that, except with your judgement (not as to refusing to vote for Romney, but as to voting for Obama), but there is nothing wrong with that.  What I hope does not exist is a Christian who will vote AGAINST Mitt Romney becasue of his religon, sinc e I think you are biting off your nose to spite your face.  "But, Skip, your own positon is that you can't vote for Mitt Romney".  That is true, becasue I jsut can't face voting for a man who I think is little better than Obama, and hwo will totaly discredit conversatism.  However, I am tallkng aobut RELIGION here.  You Christians out there simply cannot let the media "play you like a violin" on IRRELEVANT things.  If you really think taht Mitt Romney will not ADVANCE your POLICY desires any more than Barack Obama will, then you are agreeing with me (a positin that has received a lot of flak, even from memy own family, and with some justice). If you think , however, that Mitt Romney (without considering thoeology) will ADVAnCE your POLICY desieres better than Barakc Obama, then I amm willng to say you are STUPID not to vote for Mitt Romney on totally RELIGIOUS rounds.  That is exaclty what Wolf Blitzer and the mdia are tryng to DO TO YOU, and you need to recognize it.  If you have MY positoin on Romney, then I am with you. If you want to let RELIGION get int he way of PRACTICALLY ADVANCING THE CAUSES IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE, then I insist you are being stuid.  You should recognize one of the tings that this blog has been tryiong to get across to you, as illustrated by the fictional El mer Gantry:  It is NOT POSSIBLE to really know whether a man or woman is SINCERE n his or her religon.  I am convinced Barack Obama is NOT a Christian, but I am not absolutely CERTAIN.  I, hoever, AM CERTAIN that YOU cannot KNOW that Barack Obama is a Christian.  And I would say the same aobut Mike Huckabee, or anybody else.  No, I would not "doubt" Miek Huckabee as much as I doubt Obama, but I KNOW that you do not KNOW  that Mike Huckabee is sincere. You may belieggve it, but you cannot know.  I have said before that I am a SKEPTIC, and that means being SKEPTICAL of even skepticism.  However, that applies to GOD.  It is imossible for  me to say that you CanNOT KNOW whether a Chrsitian God exists.  But EXPERIECNE shows, that it is ossible fo r INSINCERE people to be VERY CONVINCING (even as to relign).  I guess I would say that MY RELIGIN meanst that I am gong too far to even say that you CANNOT KNOW that Mike Huckabeee is realy a Chrsitan. Negertheless, I hhink that is about as close to an aboslute truth as there is.  Human beings are fallible, both in BEING con men like Elmer Gantry, and in BELIEVEING in con men like Elmer Gantry.  Sure, you can be jsut as fallibele as to JUDGMENT in electing a Presdient, wihout even getting into religino.  But why COMPLICATE your problems by trying to make a jusdment on RELIGION, as well as a judgment on WHICH CANDIATE will best advance the coutnry toward the country you want it to be?  I see no reason why you should be that stupid  Yes, it is a  natural tendency to TRUST someone who appears to think like you do (as Jews trlusted Bernie Madooff).  There is nothign even wrong with taht, all things being equal otherwise.  But all things are rarely otehrwise equal. You mmight also consider whether GOD might have a PLAN that inclujdes an ATEIST (like me, altough I consider militant atehists intolerant, while I have nothing at all agaisnt the Chrsitian religin--any Christian religin) a Presdient of the United States as teh way to BEST advance His religion.  That is the problem. Theology is theology, and  it realy has little to do with politics.  IN politics, you should do our best to go for the politician who willl ADVANCE tghe coutntry toward the kind of country you wnat it to be, which includes the policies that your RELIGION may lead you to beieve are important, but which you dare not include trying to figure out the "true" THEOLOGY of candidates. Your job is hard enough without that latter mistake, as proven by your (oru?--although I dond not vote for him) lection of Barack Obama in the first place.  See how littel FEAR I ahve of discussing religni.  Now, if I only had FEAR of being terminally wordy and boring, you would regard yourself as better off.  

New Unemployment Claims Rise Again: At Four Month High (Media Lies Psychopathic/Sociopathic Bleatings of the Corrupt, as Enters Media Twilight Zone Where Fantasy Rul,les)

As usual on Friday, the number of new unemploymenbt claims for the previous week wsa released today, and it showed grim news.  Either the economy is DETERIORATING, or was jsut never "improving" much in the first place. New unemployment claims (a measure of LALYOFFS, where a HIGHER number is BAD) have NOT IMPROVED this entrie year.  We are at a yearly hihg.  Was the APPARENT "improvement" at the end of last year merely the new seasonal pattern, as this blog has suggested, repeating the PATTERN of 2010 and 2011?  As sated, the DATA would so suggest, as we are now right at that 400,000 level AGAIN, despite overall good weather this winter and spring, after being at the same level in February of 2011.  That is right.  We have really NOT IMPROVED in the labor market since February of 2011. So much for an "improving trend". No such "trend" has existed THIS ENTIRE YEAR. That may be a surprise to you if yu have made the mistake of listening to the regular media, instead of reading this blog. Correctg headline:

"U.S. Jobless Clains Rise Again, to 388,000, Remaining at Four Month High"

Here is the LYING headline from the psychopathic/sociopathic LIARS at (as the wekly media LIES get ever more obvious):

"U.S. jobless claims drop 1,0000, to 388,000"

No.  That above headline is OBJECTIVELY a LIE--typi cal of the media reporting of this weekly report. The only other possible headline, with any pretense to the truth, would be:

"U.S. jobless claims stay approximately the same, at 388,0000, subject to revision next week"

Yep, the psychopathic/sociopathic liears of teh media keep insistiang upon comparing apples land oranges.  See this blog's CORRECT article LAST WEEK (next week's news, last week), when this blog correctly told you that last week's INITIALLY reported number of 386,000--supposedly a "drop" of 2,000--would be REVISED UPWARD to (probably) 389,000.  That is exactly what hapened.  Last week's 386,000 was REVISED to 389,0000 (UP 1,000 from the previius week's 388,000), and then the media reports taht the number FELLL 1,000 this wee (from the REVISED 389,000 to the UNREVISED 388,000).

You should see the obvius LIE here.  The 388,000 initially reported this week will be REVISED next week.  The usual revision is an UPWRD revision of 3,000 or so (although that UPWARD revision has been as high as 16,000 in recent weeks). This means, as this blog's suggested headline reads, that jobliess claims actually ROSE 2,000, on an apples-to-apples basis, and based on the EXPECTED revision nexte week, rather than "dropping" 1,000.  It is, of course, worse than that. 

Here are the numbers for the past 3 weekss, starting with the number reported this week:  388,000 (to be REVSISED, likely to 391,000 or so); 389,0000 and 388,000.  Thus, we have THREE STRAIGHT WEEKS where the number has been close to 390,000--not that far from teh "watershed" number of 400,000, which is recognized as a BAD number showing that the labor makrket is NOT IMPROVING.  We need, in fact, to be BELOW 350,000.  At this stage in a recovery, we really need to be at 250,000.  We DID, for a few weeks in February, getrt right to the 350,000 level, only to now DETERIRATGE back toward 400,000.  The FOUR-WEEK AVERAGE has now RISEN SIGNIFICANTLY for 3 straight weeksreally more like six straight weeks, as the number has MUMPED from a HIGH POINT in the previous range (that high pint being around 365,000) to more about 25,000 ABOVE THAT PREVIUS RANGE. Despite the psychopathic/sociopathic liears and incompetents of teh media, this is really BAD news. The labor market is simply NOT IMPROVING.  Again, it is either GETTING WORSE, or was never erally (singificantly) improved in the first place. 

Do you realize that a number as low as 370,000  next week, which the media would "hail" as a "gereat" "improvement" of 20,000, would realy LEAVE the four-week average at this FOUR MONTH HIGH.  That is just how bad the numbers for these last three weeks have been.  There have been enough weeks now that we can fairly say:  The supposed "improving trnd" in the labor market DOES NOT EXIST.   Presdient Obama is "presiding over" a labor market that is NOT IMPROVING, and has not significantly "improved' in MORE THAN A YEAR.  Meanwhile, the economic fascists of Wall Street continue to rely upon Bailout Ben Bernanke to BAIL THEM OUT (not you).  Fed Charirman Ben Bernanke REMAINS The Worst Failure in the History of World Finance (unliess you are a BENEFICIARY of "Bailout Ben", and the Obama Administratin, ON WALL STREET).

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). 

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

President Obama Is NOT a Christian, as Bill Maher and The Maverick Conservative Agree (Two Noted Agnaostics)

I told you that, so lng as CNN andor the rest oft he supporters of Barack Obma, in and out of the mainstream media, continue to tyr to make an ISSUE out of Mitt Romney being a Mormon (and therefore not a "real' Christian), The Maverick Conservative will continue to feature the above headline more days than not.  Given that disgraceful CNN PLL htis morning (see previus articles today), there was never any doubt that this CORRECT headline would appear today.

See the previous articles over the past few days.  

Since the DEMOCRAT governor of Montana tried to aamke an ISUE out of Romney's father living in a Mormon  "poloygamist commune" in Mexico, and since CNN is in the midst of this PUSH to make Romneyhh's Mormonism an issue, this blog is BEHIND as to this headlline.  Therfore, yu can expect expet some variaton of this headline TOMORROW, and probably every remaining day this week. 

Again, for a full explanatin, see the preivous blog articles posted this week. 

CNN: Can Americans Stand To Watch an Anti-Christian Network? A Maverick Conservative Poll

No, in case you were wondering, I am not going to let this go.  This CNN POLL questin this morning has compounded my anger over yesterday's BIGOTED "performance" by Wolf Blitzer (see previous articles).  I have actualy never been ANGRIER at a mainstream media outlet, and that is saing a LOT.  Here, to refresh yorr memory, is the disgraceful poll questin from CNN this morning, which the anchor SPECIFICALLY directed at Mitt Romney's Mormonism (even though "Mormon" is NOT mentinoed in the "poll"): "Can Americans ever elect a non-Christian to be Presdient/"  Hey, I think the first word int he question should be "Will", since Americans obviusly CAN, but I am trying to quote this as exactly as I can. 

What does that oll have to do with anything?  I know that CNN prefaced this poll by saying:  "Many Chjristians beleive that a Mormon is not a Christgian."  However, that just emphasizes how MENINGLESS this poll is.  Who says that Mitt Romney is not a Christian?  CNN?  I know thqt CNN has gone ouot and LOOKED for Christian pastors land theologians to say waht CNN WANTS SAID lhere, but this is really an ARCANE THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (whether Mormons are Christians), wiht NO significance except to BIGOTS like Wollf Blitzer and the other people of CNN.  The DISHOENST qestion (fromm The Liar Network) is designed for ONE, and ONLY ONE, purose:  to use the ter, "non-Christian" in connectin with Mitt Romney. IF yoiu are going to be a BIGOT, and ask this question (the quesiton CNN was purporting to ask about Mitt Romney), you would ask:  "Are Americans willing to elect a Mormon President?"  But, for the DISHONEST LBIGOTS of CNN, this is all  about a PRO-OBAMA agenda. 

By the way, Americans have ALREADY ELECTED an nonChristian to be President:  Barack Obama.  Bill Maher and The Maverick Conserviative--probably the two most prominent agnostics in the country-both AGREE taht Baack Obama is NOT a Christian, but isa "secualar humanist" (Maher's words, meaning Obama's real religion is leftist ideology).  Oh, you can claim that the U.S. has not elected an OPENLY non-Christian Pressident, but that is not in the DISHONEST CNN queestion, is it.  Mormons, of course, CLAIM to be Christians. My BARBER says they are not--being an evangelical Christian who STUDIES the THOLOGY of religion in FORMAL GROUPS--but HE is less BIGOTED than CNN (willing to vote for a Mormon for Presdient, AND realizing that Brarack Obama is not even arguably a Christian (talking a hypocritical lie here, and NOT THEOLOGY).  Did I just compare Barack Obama to the fictional Elmer Gantry (so brilliantly played by Burt Lancaseter)?  Yep.  I have done that for a long time. The point is that CLAIMING to be a Chrisitian does NOT make you a Christian, although the ISSUE of rligion has NO BUSINESS in American politics (despte CNN trying to make it the MAJOR issue in this camlpaign).  IF CNN--evil as the people of that entwr are, and ANTI-CHRISITAN bigots that they are--is going to make this an ISSUE, then this blotg is more than willing to take up the gauntlet.  As an AGNOSTIC, I am a NEUTRAL here (unlike the total PARTISANS of CNN).  Oh, by the way, it is not just the ACLU who likes to claim that Thomas Jerrerson was NOT a "Christian".  It  was someting of an "issue" IN HIS OWN TIMME, but obviusly did not keep him from being elected TWICE.  Isn't CNN great?  They are trying to REVIVE an "issue" that was not a winning issue even 200 YEARS ago. In other words, the EviL BIGOTS of CNN are trying to set back "enlightenment" more than 200 years.  So much for the LEFT really bellieving in "religius freedom".  They DON'T.  Just like they DON'T believe in FREE SPEECH and DON'T believe in DEMOCRACY (except, of course, for the LEFT).

Thus, yoiu can see the reason for The Maverick Conservative poll.  It is a take off on the evil CNN poll.  Besies, we don't have to actually DO anything. The American peole have already ANSWERED the poll, and the answwer is "NO".  The American people are NOT willing to stand for wathcing an anti-Christian network, as is PROVEN by the fact that AOMOST NOBODY watches lCNN. That is why this lbog does not bother to call for a general BoYCOTT of CNN. The American people are already DOIING that (as they should).  The ONLY reason this blog "surfs" CNN (now to the EXCLUSION of the EVIL Wolf Blitzer) is as a STAND IN for the rest of the mainstream media. It keeps me up to date on LEFTIST THINKIKING in this counntry, along with my AT&T/Y:ahoo "News' default page. I, of courfse, give CNN no credibility. 

Let me be as blunt as I possibly can:  "Americans" ARE willing to elect a Mormon.  And a "poll" on th esubject is nooting more than evil bigotry.  IF Romney loses, and this blog will NOT "endorse" him or Obama, it will NOT be because he is a Mormon.  And, as the results of The Maverick Conservative poll indicate (resultes that came in before the poll was announced), CNN is "catering" to an ever smaller group of people:  Leftist activists wose SOLE present goal is to re-eelect Presdient Obama (the same major goal of the peole of CNN). 

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).  As this blog has told lyou, CNN is ANTI-ChRISITAN (see blog article after blog article).  Why is CNN trying to CONVINCE CHRISTIANS not to votge for Romney?  I have told lyou that, as well.  CNN is trying to SUPPRESS the "Christian" vote for Mitt Romney (or agaisnt Barack Obama, who is engaging, like CNN, in a WAR on the Christian religion). CNN think you Christians are StUPID.  If nay of you actually buy into THIS reason for voting against Romney, then I am disappointed in you.  You are MORE STUPID than my barber, and any other Christian I can remember meeting-including members of may own family. Admittedly, most members of my family think I am stupid for not realizing that I MUST support Romney, because Obama will DESTROY this country.  They have a point, but--as I have often explained--I jsut can't STOMACH voting a single additonal time for the "lesser evil" GOP establishment candidate.  I wouild nto care if Romney were a green Mariian, with some kind of strange Martian religion.  But I jsut can't STAND that he is a typical GOP "estalbishment" candidate.  That makes him a HERETIC to MY RELIGIION (conservatism).

Wolf Blitzer Is Not a Christian (ON The Nanti-Christian Network)

This is, of course, a follow up to Wolf Blitzer's "question" yestterday, on his CNN sho (which he HEAVVILY lpromoted, with th eFALSE idea that it is MPORTANT):  "Is Mitt Romney a Christian?"  That is the question that has caused the author of this blgo to BOYCOTT Wolf Blitzer, FOREVER, as he is an EviL person spreading EVIL.  See the past several lblog articles.  Wolf Blitzer is such a miserable excuse for a human being taht the blog author can no longer even, in good conscience, SURF any program upon which he is featured. 

What?  You say that ita is irrelevant that Wllf Blitzer is not a Christian, and how do I know?  I agree that it is irrelevant, to a large degree, but it is MORE relevant thatn the THEOLOGICAL question of whether a Mormon is a Christian.  CNN has been consistently ANTII-CHRISTIAN (unless lyou are a "CNN Christian", which can best be anaogized to Mrk Twain's satire of a "Cooper Indian", in his famous essay on the ersatz Indians in the fiction of James Fenimore Cooper). If CNN had more Christians on the network, maybe it would not be so BIGOTED.   CNN, and Blitzer, are not only BIGOTED against Christians who actually believe in their religion, but CNN is MORE BIGOTED (or at least acts like it is, which is the same thing) agasint MORMONS than the most bigoted evangelical Christian who ever lived. Now, of course, CNN is only BIGOTED this badly against GOP MORMONS, but that just means that Wolf Blitzer and CNN are HYPOCRITICAL BIGOTGS: willing to CONSCIIOUSLY PROMOTE BIOGTRY to push their political agenda. 

How do I know Wolf Blitzer is not a Christian? It is because I am not a Christian, and have LISTENED to hi (of and on) for DECADES.  The man is no more a Christian tahan I am.  I guarantee that to you..  I am more sure of that than I am that Barack Obama is not a Christian, and I am 99% sure f that (as Bill Maher and I--noted agnostics both--agreel).  It is no accident that Bill Maher finds a SYMPATHETIC audience on CNN.  Maher is the most INTOLERANT, anti-Christian biogt on this planet (ouside of Muslim extremists, who think that the only good Christian is a ddead Christian, and I am not so sure that Maher does nto think that way).

Nope.  I assure you taht Wolf Blitzer is not a Christian, and that is MORE relevant to whether Wolf Blitzer is a "glood"..........................................................sorrry, on the floor, laughing, once again....."journalist" than  the THEOLOGICAL question of whether a Mromn is a christian is relevant to whether Mitt Romney should be President.  And I think almost ALL Christians understand taht. It is only peole like Wol fBlitzer, and the rest of CNN, who are so BIGOTED that tthey theink that believing "Christians" are SO STUPID as to not understnad the counterporductive BIGOTRY that CNN is promoting. CNN is no freind of Christians. If CNN is TELLING Christians that Christians "should" have a problem with Mitt Romney, then you know it is because CNN is simply trying to USE Christians for its own purposes. How do you Christians out there like it that Wolf Blitzer thinks you are so STuPID taht he can SELL BIGOTRY to you (HIKCS that he thinks you are), so that you will not consider that Barack Obama is conducting a WAR ON CHRISTIANS (with the approval of CNN)..  How STUPID must Wolf Blitzsaer think Christians are to be convinced by RELIGION to votge agaisnt Mitt Romney, when NON-CHRISTIAN Obama has PROVEN he is as bad a President for Christians as it is possible to have?  As I have told blog readers, and is true, Christians would be WELL ADVISED to vote for an AGNOSTIC like me, rather than Barack Obama, even though I "admit" I amn nnot a Christian.  Esepcaily if yhou are a "believing" Christian, who takes his or her religoin seriusly (the very poelple Blitzer is trying to influence ith BIGOTRY), I wouuld ADVANCE the POLICY GOALS of Christians more than alomst any politican out there.  And that shoulld be the basis upon which CHRISTIANS should vote, along with ALL people:  Waht candidate will advance MY COUNTRY in the right direction on IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUES. That is exactly the questin htat Wolf Blitzer, and CNN, do not WANT "Christians" ,or anyone else, to ask.  Rather, the EVIL Blitzer thinks THIS is the questin you should be askng about Mitt Ropmney:  "Is a Mormon reallyl a Christian/"  Give me a break.  The main--Wold Blitzer--is one of the WORST, MOST DESPICABEL, BIGOTED people who has ever lived--again, with the possible exception of people like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, other mass murderers, serial killers, terrorists and the like. 

And=, never forget, Wolf Blitzer is not a Christian.  He lthinks you Christians are STUPID.

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I am still waiting for CNN to ASK Barack Obama whether he believes that the Bible contains the Word of God, and whether he really beleives that Darwin's Theory of Evolution FULLY explains HOW intelligent "homo sapiens" devleoped on this planet from NON-LIVING chemicals to one celled creatures to intelligent human beings.  What are OBAMA'S theological positons, other than his former apstors views of GOD DAMN AMERICA, and that the CIA is deliberately providing drugs to destroy black males in this country. Another CNN question to Obama, whihc will never be asked:  Do you really beliefve in the THEOLOGY of the CHURCH OF CHRIST, or wre lyou a member of REverend Wright's church jsut because you believed in REverend Wright?   Nope.  rpresident Obama is not a Christian, and neither or Wolf Blitzrer, or almost any of the other peole of CNN.  Antoher question CNN , or Sixty Minutes, will neve askBarack Obama, although Sixty Minutes actually ASKED Mitt Romney whether he had engaged in PREMARITAL SEX: "Mrr. President, do you agree with the Bible that premaritlal sex is a sin."  Piers Morgan, of couse, asked Rick Santroum the DISGRACEFUL question:  "Do oyouo believe HOMOSEXUALITY is a sin?"  Another impossible quesotin from CNN to Presdient Obama:  "Iif the Bible says lthat momosexual sex is a sin, does that affect lyour views on the subject? Do ou put yourself above God?"  We ALL nknow the answer to that LAST question. CNN does not even have to ask it.  You can see how we COULD have our entire elections CONSUMED with RELIGIOUS QUESTIONS. That is the EVIL which CNN, and the maisntream media, are tyring to PROMOTE.  Nope.  And this is part of the EVIL they are promoting.  IT is NOT a questin of RELIGION as to whether AbORTION should be illegal, or whethe rwe should have GAY MARRIAGE.  Those are SECULAR QUESIINS upon which a person' religious believfs may have a (LEGITIMATE) bearing.  A candidtes POSITIONS on the secular questions are relevant. A cnddiates's THEOLOGY is NOT RELEVANT.  That is why it is RELIEVANT what Rick Snatourm thingks about SECULAR HOMOSEXUAL ISSUES, but NOT RELEVANT whether he regards "homosexuality" as a SIN.  If you don't understnad these (important) distinctions, then apply to work fo rWOLF BLITTZER and/or CNN.  You will fit right in.

Can a Non-Christian Be Re-Elected President of teh United States?

As you know, many Americans--including noted agnostics Bill Maher and The Maverick Conservative--believe that Barack Obama is not a Christian.  That leads us to today's poll questin:  "Can a nnonn-Christian be re-elected President of the United States?" 

You say that is a ridiculous "poll", and an even more ridiculous way to introduce a poll?  Well, yu are ATTACKNG CNN, The Bigoted Network.  That was the CNN "poll questin" this morning, with EXACTLY that introduction (changing the name from Barack Obama to Mitt Romney).  Here is how it went, as I HEARD it:

"Many Chnistians do not believe that Mormons, such as Mitt Romney, are Christians.  This leads us to our CNN poll quesiton:  "Can America elect a non-Christian President/" 

Notice how DISHOENST, as well as BIGOTED, this "poll question" is!!!!!!   The CNN anchor made absolutely clear that CNN was directing the questin at MITT ROMNEY.  The discussion was all about Romney's Mormon relign, and whether Mormons are "really" Christians.  Yet, the QUESTIN does not even mentin eihter Mormons or Mitt Romney. Can you get any more DISHOENST than that? 

Look at the LEAPS CNN is taking in the name of BIGOTRY.  You have a questin DIRECTED atg Mitt Romney and Mormons which does nto mentin Mitt Romney or Mormons.  Then CNN is going to try to USE this poll to say that Mitt Romneyh cannot be elected Presdient, because Americans will not elect a non-Christian.  How BIGOTED can yu et!!!!!  Americans, of course, have ALREADY elected a non-Christian as President:  BARACK OBAMA. The questin is whether they will re-elect him.  But CNN is trying to SNEAKILY JUMP from the THEWOLOGICAL quesitn of whether "Mormonism" is "really" a Christina religin--a totally THEOLOGICAL "question"--to this attempted logical syllogism (abssurd):

1.  Americans will not vote for a non-Cjhristian for Presdient, such as a Muslim or an atheist (someting CNN would CONDEMN and RIDICULUE if such a person were OPENLYU running for Presdient, and being aooposed on that gournd). 

2.  A Mormon, such as Mitt Romhney, is not really a Christian.

3.  Theerefore, Mitt Romney cannot be elected President. 

Good luck, CNN, with this SPHIST BIGOTRY.  The Maverickk Conservative calls you out for what you are: DISHONEST BIGOTS. perfectly wiling to make THEOLOGY a POLITICAL ISSUE if it fits your POLITICAL AGENDA>  The Maverick Conservative is calling you out as evil people spreading evil. 

John King, previusly on CNN, in a "commentary (tirade) as to "questins" about whether Barack Obama is a Christian::   "There are some evil (whether King used that word or onot, this was the sense of his TIRADE) who want to make an ISSUE out of how peole pray.  That is a terrible thing in America.". 

Q.E.D.  You heard it from John King.  Wolf Blitzer, and the otehr peole of CNN tryhing to make an ISSUE out of "how Mormons pray", are EvIL people who are attacking the very foundation of America.  In other words, CNN is an EviL NETWORK attacking the very ffoundations of America. And here I thought John king was a HYPOCRITE.  I obviusly did not have enough insight into his genius. He was just using his positon on CNN,as a MOLE within CNN, to EXOSE the EVIL HYPOCIRSY of CNN.  Good,  job, Joh King. 

This blgo will "report" the "results" of The Maverick Conservative poll tomorrow.  You are invited to VOTE by coment on this blog.  But the poll is not limited to those comments, if any.  Nope.  The blog will be OUT THRE, among  the peole, asking the poll quesiton.  You can expect THOUSANDS of votes.  You may suspect how this "poll" is going to turn out. But be sure and read tomorrow to see if you have developed las accurate a reading of this blog as this blgo has of CNNH.

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  By the way, here is another poll questin: Are Christian conservativves more likely to vote for a Muslim for Presdient thatn leftists, like those on CNN, are likely to vote for a Christian conservative?"  I can telly you the correct rsults of this poll:  90% "yes".  5% "no"  5% "don't know".  Yep.  I am syaing that the CNN polli is an EVI poll that means NOTHING, even if CNN did not make the EVIL clear by linking the "poll" directly to Mitt Romney. It is ABUSRD, IN THE ABSTRACT, to be asking peole whether they will elect a "non-Christian.".  It depends on the non-Christian.  Muslims and Christian conservatives, for examle, ahve vbery SIMILAR views on "social issues".  Is it IMPOSSIBLE to imagine a situation where a MUSLIM candidate makes comon cause with CHRISTIANS on ISSUES/  I don't see any reason thais might not happen. Tis kind of polli  is MEANINGLESS, and EVIL.  Look at all of those plls that said that America would never elect a BLACK Presdient.  Now America should NOT ahve elected this particular black Presdient, but the fact that we did shows ow MEAINGLESS these polls are.  Now CNN only used polls on anti-BLACK bigotry to PUSH the idea that voters needed to rEJECT the BIGOTRY shown in such polls.  Is CNN noting anti-Momon BIGOTRY for the sam reason, to suggest that peole vote FOR Mitt Romney to show that they are NOT BIGOTED?......................................................................................Sorry, agina-, as I was on the floor in that fetal positoin, aluging and crtihng at the same time...................................You jsut don't get more bigoted and dishonest than the people of CNN.

Wolf Blitzer: Evil Bigot on The Bigoted Network

See the previouis article. Tihis is exactly what the bigoted Wolf Blitzer said on his show on The Bigoted Network yesterday (I heard it, although it is the LAST time I will ever hear Wolf Blitzer live):  "Coming up, I ask a Christian pastor whether Mormons are Christians, , and we have a report on Mitt Romney's activities as a 'bishop' (lol--Wolf, yu are so DISHONEST) in the Mormon Church."

Be honest. Can you get any more BIGOTED, and HYPOCRITICAL, than Wolf Blitzer and CNN.  This is the nateowrk that said it was EVIL to make Barack Obama's religion an 'issue" in th epolitical campaign.  Yet, it is now CNN CESPERATELY trying to make Mitt Roney's RELIGION an issue, in exactly the same way taht CNN said was EVIL regarding Barack Obama: the question of whether Barack Obama is "really" a Christian.  The difference, of course, is that Mitt Romney has never claimed to be anything but a Mormon.  The question of wehter Mormons are Christians is solely a question of arcane THEOLOGY.  It is CNN what is ADOVCATING makeing THEOLOGY a POLITICAL ISSUE.  Yu jsut do not get any more EVIL than that, and CNN has CONVICTED ITSELF of EVIL by prevsiously, and correctly, saying it is an EVIL thingto try to make a person's religion an issue in American politcis.  Q.E.D.  CNN is an EViL network  BIGOTED as Hell;  Wolf Blitzer is an EVIL man; bigoted as Hell.  Now I don't think it is a good thing to make Barack Obama's religion "issue" in politics, but look how much MORFRE justificatin there is for it. When it is a political advantage to himself, Obama LIKES TO portray HIMSELF AS A "cHRISTIAN". iF HE REALLY IS NOT a Christian, as noted agnostics Bill Maher lalnd The Maverick Conservative agree he is not, then does that not make President Obama a liar and a hypocrite?  Of course it does, while you CANNOT say that of Mitt Romney. With Romney, CNN is attacking HIS RELIGION.  With Obama, the quesitn is whether he is deliberately LYING about his religion for GAIN, as in the case of the fictional Elmer Gantry. To me, that does nto really justify making Obama's religion a political issue, but there is a much BETTER case for it than there is for making teh THEOLOGY of Mitt Romney's religion a olitical issue.  Nope.  It is NOT TRUE that Romney is out there making his relgin some sort of major issue, although he is not apologizing for it (why should he, unless you are a BIGOT, like Wolf Blitzer and the rest of the peole of CNN).

Did Wolf Blitzer deliberately use the word 'bishop", with regard to Mitt Ronmney, in order to FALSELY compare Romney's role  int he Mormon church to that of a Roman Catholic bishop? Of course he did.  Wolf Blitzer is a dishonest,, evil purpose. The idea that Mitt Romney is the euquitalent of a Roman Catholic bishop in the Mormon Church is simply absurd.

Is Wolf Blitzer really saying that Miitt Romney being ACTIVE in his religion is something to be used AGAINST him, while Barack Obama being INACTIVE in ANY relgini is something that FAVORS OBAMA? CNN--The Bigoted Network , The Evil Network, and The Anti-Christian Network--seems to be taking exaclty that astunding position.  The very thing that causes peole like Bill Maher and me to say that Barack Obama is NOT a Christian--namesly that he has NO specific religin, and WORKS in NO church--is being USED by CNN to ATTACK Mitt Romney.  Mitt Romney actually HAS a religion, in which he appears to believe and in which he participates, without being fanatic about it, while Barack Obama has NO DEFINABLE RELIGION.  For CNN, tihs is enough to ATTACK ROMNEY ON RELIGION.--ON THEOLOGY.  CNn can only do that because Romney HAS a thology, without pretending to be any kind of "expert" on Mormon theology.  Since Barack Obama HAS NO THEOLOGY, CNN is saying you CANNOT attack HIM on "theology" (or lack of it).  CNN is also The Liar Network, as this blog intends to show you.  More days than not, between now and the November election, this blgo will have a headine syahing:  "Barack Obama is NOT a Christian.'  And it will be an absolutely truthful headline.  True, as an agnostic, I don't regard not being a Christian as a bad thing, but it does make Obama a liar and a hypocrite.  However, CNN iss in exactly the same position:  Wolf Blitzer, and the other people of CNN, are generally NOT CHRISTIANS EITHER. They are beign BIGOTS for politicaly PARTISAN reasons, making them trulyEVIL people on a level almost beyond imagination. 

This blog has, yuet agian, given yu tomorrow's news months in advance.  Back in the days when Romehy was still being CONTESTED for teh GOP nominatin, this blog told you that the media would EMBRACE BIGOTRY fully if Romney won the nomination.  The Maverick Conservative told you tghat CNN , and the rest of the mainstream media, would PUSH anti-Mormon BIGOTRY as far as they could, onceRomney became the nominee.  While Rick Santroum, or some other "Christian conservative", was a possibility, CNN would not really "push" the "issue", because they are ANTI-CHRISITAN as well.  But onece Romney beame the nominee, the EVIL BIOGTS of CNN were sure to "take the gloves off", and go after Romney's Mormon religion.  That is what this blog told you, and that is what CNN has done.

What did CNN do when the GOP nomination was still is some doubt?  They DID raise the "mormon issue", but tried to pass it off as the "bogotry" of "right wing' evangelistic Christians.  The CNN mantra then was that Romney was having trouble wiht those BIGOTED evangelistic Christians who actually take their religion seriously.  What this blog CORRECTLY told you, as CNN has now made clear, was that it was NEVER "vangelicals" who were willing to embrace (generally) BIGOTRY against Mitt Romney as a Mormon.  It was ALWAYS CNN.  Now, CNN, and the dishoenst Wolf Blitzer, are not referring to only thowe "crazy" evangelicalls, but are talking as if "many Christians" (that is, CNN WANTS thme to fel this way) willl refuse to vote for Romney because he is a Mormon.  No lamentations of CNN about how this is BIGOTED, or maknig THEOLOGY a major issue in a POLITICAL campaign. CNN-and yes, OBAMA SUPPORTERS in general--always intneded to EMBRACE BIGOTRY against Mitt Romney, and to make Ropmney's religion-the THEOLOGY of his religin--an "issue' in tghis elecitn.  CNN no lnoger has the COVER of "blaming" this on "Christian conservatives"--try as they migt.

lYep.  This lbog is teling you, as The Maverick Conservative told llyou before, that CN ic mposed of WORSE BIGOTS than almost any "evangelistic Christian" who ever lived--certainly more DISHOENST bigots.  The people of CNN, like Wolf Blitzer, are willing to PUSH BIGOTRY as a POLITICAL issue.  And, behind the scenes, you have the OBAMA lpeople (as indicated by that disgraceful statemetn from the govrnor of Montana).  Message from CNN, Obama supporters and the left: Don't worry about the COUNTRY, or whether Romey would be a good President.  You should worry about whether Mormons are Christians.  And we tell you that even though we are ANTI-CHRISTIAN ourselfves. 

Q.E.D.  Wolf Blitzer is an Evi BIGOT.  The poeloe of CNN, The Bigoted Network, are EVI BIOGTS. 

Now readers of this blog know that I am BOYCOTTING the entire prime time "lineup" of the unfair and unbalanced netwlr,, because of what I regard as the "journalistic" creimes of that network (similar, indeed, to the crimes of CNN).  What I have to face now is how I can do that and sitll even SURF such an EVIL person as Wolf Blitzer.  I know.  ALL of CNN is pretty much as bad as Wollf Blitzer.  But I need to "surf" both the ungalanced and unfair network, and CNN, to get a general idea of of what is goinng on.  At the same time, how can I support EViL on CNN, wihtout taking AnY real action?  I have decided I can't.  I HAVE to take at least one SYMBOL from CNN--a "face" of CNN--and take actin.  I have chosen that EVIL BIGOT, WOLF BLITZER, as the perfect person to use as an EXAMPLE.  Therefore, this wil be the LAST TIME that you will ever see this blog talka bout Wolf Blitzer based on LIVE viewing of him or his CNN porgram.  I may comment on CLIPS, if they come to my attentino .  But Wolf Blitzer is now a NON-PERSON, as far as I am concerned.  EVIL BIGOTRY needs to be PUNISHED, and this is the humbele best I can do.  I will NEVER, so long as I live, voluntarily listen to a lprogram upon whihc Wolf Blitzer is featured. You have NOT heard aobut Bill O'Reily or Greta Van Susteren on this blog, since I began my TOTAL BOYCOTT of the prime time of the unfair and unbalanced network.  And those lpeple have never been QUITE as EVIL as Wolf Blitzer.  It is only justicie that Wolf Blitzer join them in Coventry.  I will take Anderson Cooper and the other "faces' of CNN under advisement. For now, however, I will continue to SURF the rest of CNN for MATERIAL (and knowledge as to how the EvIL, BIGOTED LEFT is spreading evil).  As this blog has told you, it is sort of futile to call for a boycott of CNN, since the American people are ALREADY engaing in that boycott, wihout consicusly calling it a boycott. 

P.S.  No proofreading or spell lchecking (bad eyesight).  Hey, I amy be pretty much blind, but I am not a BIGOT.   That means I am much less fundamentally blind than Wolf Blitzer, and the rest of CNN.  I, an agnostic, even raised my daughters WIHOUT "pushing" my views upon them  I never, unlike the INOTLERANT LEFT, tried to keep my duaghters from CONTACT with religion.  I did onot tell them to "object' to "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, or to worry about a teacher posting the Ten Commandments. In fact, for about two years, I paid for my  two daughters to go to a CAHOTLIC SCHOOL (it being THEIR choice to leave, because they wanted to go to a shcool with BOYS--shallow creatures that they are).  I can't see that it did my daughters iany HARM to be exposed to religinos in which I did not believe. Nor, I am afraid, did it do them any GOOD.  They turned out basically llike ME on religion, with the unfortunate fact that my older daughter is mroe like the INTOLERANT Bill Maher.  She told me just last night that she regards it as a reason to vote FOR Barack Obama--as she did last electin--that Barack Obama is not a Christian.  Bu the real SHAME is that both of my duaghters tuned out to be RADICAL FEMINISTS.  If only their contact with religin had somehow kept me from that SHAME!!!!!!!  As readers of this blog knwow, it only increased that SHAME when The Maverick Conservative was FORCED, by the SEXISM of CLNN and the rest of the left, to 'come out of the  closet" as a FEMINIST defenidng women against SEXIST attacks.  Maon.  Would that have happened to me if I were not an agnostic?  It is almost enough to make me re-evaluate religion once agian.  But I can assure you of this, as a FEMINIST AGNOSTIC:  Barack Obama is not a Christian, and CNN is composed of anti-Christian, anti-religious BIGOTS who deliberately USE BIGOTRY to try to advv vance their political agenda.  My borother says this has NO CHANCE of working: that ordinary peole DO NOT CARE if Mitt Romney is a Mormon, because they ahve the REAL INTERESTS of this country at heart.  I blieve my borther is right.  I hoope he is.  As this blog has told lyou, it is clear that it is NOT the "ordinaary peroson"--even the "odridnary evangelistic Christina--who is really advocating voting AGAINST Mitt Rpomney because he is a Mormon.  That is CNN, and the left, tyring to USE what THEY (biogts that they are) peerceive as the STUPIDTY of "Christians" to advance their political agenda.  And no, I sitll cannot support Mitt Romney for President, but that has NOTHING to do with the fact that he is a Mromn, just as my OPPOSITION to Barack Obama has nothing to do with the FACT that he is not a Christian.